• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Insurrection; GUILTY!

I didn't think that INS was a bad movie, but I felt that it was trying to be what it wasn't and that it was a wasted opportunity. I felt like so much more could have been done with the rebellion plot, but it just kind of seemed week. For trying to be what it wasn't it felt like it was trying to be TOS. Some of the jokes that they were cracking may have worked on a TOS movie or episode, but these weren't things that at least I was used to seeing and expecting from the TNG bunch. They made the characters a tad too unfamiliar.
 
Oh, I don't know. The characters all had many silly moments in the series. The silly humor in some Trek movies gets derided, but it is completely consistent with the series.

I think INS would have been better with an overall darker tone. Maybe they were trying to lighten up after FC. And the joystick. Why? Why? Why?
 
The actual version of Insurrection was pretty bad towards the Federation. It certainly wasn't Starfleet's finest hour, planning to sacrifice a whole race in order to use the planet to help in the war effort against the Dominion.

This points up a problem I have, which is that the references to the Dominion War muddied the story to a degree no one making the film was willing to address. If cutting a deal with the Son'a can help curtail the Jem'Hadar's supply of ketracel-white, mightn't that help shorten the war and save the lives of Sisko and crew (in whom we are presumably a damn sight more invested than the sodding Ba'ku)?
 
Given the success of FC you'd think they would have had something bigger than the paltry budget they had and a better script + concept. It seemed like "aahh we don't care, we're just going through the motions sh1tting out trek movies"
 
I don't think Michael Piller screwed up, but then the final film wasn't his original idea for the movie.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/10th-anniversary-review-of-star-trek-insurrection/

Piller’s first treatment, entitled "Star Trek: Stardust," was completed May 9, 1997 which was a much more serious drama based on the themes of the 1902 novella by Joseph Conrad "Heart of Darkness." The early drafts of the script involved Picard going after an old friend named Hugh Duffy who is claiming that the Federation is in collusion with the Romulans (whose leader is a charmer named Joss) to destroy a world in order to gain its precious ’sarium krellide’ ore. In defiance of Commander Norton of Starfleet (who was later changed to Admiral Matthew Dougherty), Picard realizes that Duffy is telling the truth and he places his four pips on a table to become a rebel fighting alongside Duffy. The early drafts includes a fight between Worf and Joss, Riker and crew helping Picard in his mission, political intrigue, and an ending of Picard standing before the Federation Council to answer for his actions. He is told his career is over until we hear Boothby applauding Picard’s comments and soon a chorus of people chant support for Picard and his mission. Based on this early version, the film wouldn’t have resolved whether or not Picard has his command back (we will have to wait for the sequel Piller promised). Many other drafts would be written during the next year, until the narrative was one with which everyone was happy. In fact, Ira Steven Behr contributed comments and notes about the script. With one of the drafts, Piller tells how he was worried because Ira took his glasses off before offering his opinion, and he never takes his glasses off! Pre-production started in early 1998 and after a quick production and post-production the film was released December 11th.
I'd say that Insurrection turned out better than that first draft even Ira Steven Behr was a little worried about this draft.

I actually wish the later drafts had fleshed out these original premises a bit more, and actually given a more formal climax and resolution rather than setting up a sequel. I also actually like the Fountain of Youth aspect as the thing that is in contention.
 
I don't think Michael Piller screwed up, but then the final film wasn't his original idea for the movie.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/10th-anniversary-review-of-star-trek-insurrection/

Piller’s first treatment, entitled "Star Trek: Stardust," was completed May 9, 1997 which was a much more serious drama based on the themes of the 1902 novella by Joseph Conrad "Heart of Darkness." The early drafts of the script involved Picard going after an old friend named Hugh Duffy who is claiming that the Federation is in collusion with the Romulans (whose leader is a charmer named Joss) to destroy a world in order to gain its precious ’sarium krellide’ ore. In defiance of Commander Norton of Starfleet (who was later changed to Admiral Matthew Dougherty), Picard realizes that Duffy is telling the truth and he places his four pips on a table to become a rebel fighting alongside Duffy. The early drafts includes a fight between Worf and Joss, Riker and crew helping Picard in his mission, political intrigue, and an ending of Picard standing before the Federation Council to answer for his actions. He is told his career is over until we hear Boothby applauding Picard’s comments and soon a chorus of people chant support for Picard and his mission. Based on this early version, the film wouldn’t have resolved whether or not Picard has his command back (we will have to wait for the sequel Piller promised). Many other drafts would be written during the next year, until the narrative was one with which everyone was happy. In fact, Ira Steven Behr contributed comments and notes about the script. With one of the drafts, Piller tells how he was worried because Ira took his glasses off before offering his opinion, and he never takes his glasses off! Pre-production started in early 1998 and after a quick production and post-production the film was released December 11th.

I'd say that Insurrection turned out better than that first draft even Ira Steven Behr was alittle worried about this draft.

What planet are you on? This synopsis of Piller's first draft is LIGHT YEARS better than the movie that was released. As the OP of this thread, I still believe to this day that it was this dumb, silly movie (Insurrection) which killed the golden goose.

Had the movie been done the way this synopsis was written, I think it may have been a great movie...Pillar is not to blame here at all. Paramount/Berman are, which is really no surprise to me at all


Rob
 
I don't think Michael Piller screwed up, but then the final film wasn't his original idea for the movie.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/10th-anniversary-review-of-star-trek-insurrection/

Piller’s first treatment, entitled "Star Trek: Stardust," was completed May 9, 1997 which was a much more serious drama based on the themes of the 1902 novella by Joseph Conrad "Heart of Darkness." The early drafts of the script involved Picard going after an old friend named Hugh Duffy who is claiming that the Federation is in collusion with the Romulans (whose leader is a charmer named Joss) to destroy a world in order to gain its precious ’sarium krellide’ ore. In defiance of Commander Norton of Starfleet (who was later changed to Admiral Matthew Dougherty), Picard realizes that Duffy is telling the truth and he places his four pips on a table to become a rebel fighting alongside Duffy. The early drafts includes a fight between Worf and Joss, Riker and crew helping Picard in his mission, political intrigue, and an ending of Picard standing before the Federation Council to answer for his actions. He is told his career is over until we hear Boothby applauding Picard’s comments and soon a chorus of people chant support for Picard and his mission. Based on this early version, the film wouldn’t have resolved whether or not Picard has his command back (we will have to wait for the sequel Piller promised). Many other drafts would be written during the next year, until the narrative was one with which everyone was happy. In fact, Ira Steven Behr contributed comments and notes about the script. With one of the drafts, Piller tells how he was worried because Ira took his glasses off before offering his opinion, and he never takes his glasses off! Pre-production started in early 1998 and after a quick production and post-production the film was released December 11th.

I'd say that Insurrection turned out better than that first draft even Ira Steven Behr was alittle worried about this draft.

What planet are you on? This synopsis of Piller's first draft is LIGHT YEARS better than the movie that was released. As the OP of this thread, I still believe to this day that it was this dumb, silly movie (Insurrection) which killed the golden goose.

Had the movie been done the way this synopsis was written, I think it may have been a great movie...Pillar is not to blame here at all. Paramount/Berman are, which is really no surprise to me at all


Rob

Whatever blame exists goes to Patrick Stewart, it was he who wanted a lighter movie and no I don't think that first draft was better than what we got. First off you plan on a sequel for a movie that's not even beeen made yet, it's nice to have plans like that but there's no certainty at the box office.
 
I like STFC with Nemesis second. Insurrection is a distant third. I like R Scorpio's description of it. :lol:

RAMA
 
I think that while 'Nemesis' is more entertaining to watch, 'Insurrection' is somewhat less offensive, perhaps by virtue of being rather bland. I find it difficult to really let one have an edge over the other.
 
Man, if we got that movie, would TNG have gotten six films by now? Think about it. Nemesis came out in 2002. TNG5 would've come out in 2004/5, and the last one would've appropriatley come out in 2007, for the series' 20th anniversary. It could have set up a peace with the Romulans arc, much the same way TOS made peace with the Klingons in their sixth movie.
 
/\Which in turn could've led to a trilogy of movies that has members from TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and even Spock. This trilogy would've finished the Unification arc. That was one storyline I would've loved to have seen completed. Vulcan and Romulas, joining forces. It could have been an ultimate conclusion to 24th century Trek.
 
I would have been totally onboard for that. Not only would combining crews give the audience something that wouldn't be offered on television, Vulcan/Romulan reunification is something so big that it reshapes the entire Trekverse. Plus, all it would have really taken were a couple of plot tweaks to 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' to make it work.

Have the Romulan doings in 'Insurrection' lead to a military coup in 'Nemesis.' In turn, the oppressive Romulan government is finally overthrown and more moderates take over, allowing reunificationists to move closer to their goals. The third movie could deal with this, featuring combined Starfleet/Romulan forces having to fight off the renegade remnants of the militaristic government, not unlike what has been done in the books with Sela and Donatra.

Something like that. :p
 
/\Which in turn could've led to a trilogy of movies that has members from TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and even Spock. This trilogy would've finished the Unification arc. That was one storyline I would've loved to have seen completed. Vulcan and Romulas, joining forces. It could have been an ultimate conclusion to 24th century Trek.


The questions remain....how many people would have gone to see them? Would an arc like that have brough box office success? One klunker, mid arc, could have killed the project without resolution. At least Nem, no matter how big of a POS it was, brought a sense of closure.
 
INS was indeed more episode-like, which is why I enjoyed it. TNG works so much better for me on TV where the ensamble cast has the opportunity to be examined and to grow. TOS works well at the theatre because it centers mostly around the Big Three (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy). That formula lends itself better to epic tales brought to the big screen every few years. The ensamble cast formula requires air time for the entire group, which movies don't allow. I wish TNG would've stayed on TV a few more years with a few bigger budget two-part episodes per season. Now I wish Trek would return to TV as a syndicated 8-hour miniseries evry 6-8 months. I would want it to cover the late 24th century post-NEM and including events and characters from all three series from that era, four if you include New Frontiers.
 
I was actually happy when I saw a TV spot for Insurrection that it was going to be rated "PG". Don't misunderstand, I'm not an MPAA supporter at all, but PG ratings back in the day used to be fairly hard core, and kids loved it! You could say that the new PG-13 rating is the old PG rating, but if there's one thing I hate about PG-13 is that it follows the book more than it does the movie.

I'm not saying we should tone Star Trek down, but when I saw that Insurrection had the PG rating, I just thought to myself "Hey, they're probably going to make Trek "TREK" again unlike First Contact!". And for all it's portrayals, it did. We discovered a new civilization and went into areas we've never been before. Heck, it's the only Star Trek movie not to feature Earth! And while it was PG, it did have some of those "Eek" moments with the stretching of skins and the admirals death.

So I tip my hat to the writers and crew for making a Trek movie that a lot of people can enjoy, unlike that really god-awful Nemesis.

Again, I'm no supporter of the MPAA!
 
I agree Insurrection was terrible (Riker's joystick is unforgiveable). However, how many film franchises get another shot after such a flop? Nemesis is the true nail in the coffin, and the problem there was too much creative control by Brent Spiner and Patrick Stewart. Yes, I said it. The screen writer was Bren Spiner's friend and Spiner helped write it with a big production endorsement by Stewart. Now I love those two actors, but they are just that - actors!!! Add to that a director who couldn't give two rat's asses about Trek continuity and lore, and you have either a really bold direction that will pay off, or a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately, it was the latter. Even after Nemesis came out, Stewart was baffled at why the public "didn't embrace our story."

The problems with Nemesis are too many to list, but one gets an uneasy feeling very early on - after 7 seasons of Picard and company upholding the prime directive with their very lives and endless debates thereof, they pull out a mounted machine gun to pop off the local population of a desert planetoid...on a doombuggy no less...with no shields...on wheels...

And this "came out in the year of Lord of the Rings" is a complete crock. The fervor over fantasy/sci fi for one film should only entice audiences to gobble up more films of the genre. In 2002, we got Spider-Man, Attack of the Clones, Two Towers, Blade II, Harry Potter, MIB2, and they all made huge money side-by-side.

So I agree that Insurrection was terrible, maybe even worse than Nemesis (but that debate is not worth the time or effort to have, it's like debating over which month-old piece of fruit I totally forgot about is moulding worse), but it was definitely Nemesis that put the nail in the TNG coffin. Such a terrible ending to a legendary crew.
 
I thought INS was funny and lighthearted, especially coming after the intensity of FC. I liked seeing Picard get romantic again and not have the whole movie be about Data's emotion chip. I was entertained, bottom line, and that is why I love Star Trek in the first place.
 
Insurrection has developed it's own quiet fan base though, mainly because it's the only film that seemed true to the tv series.

To be fair, anything coming off the back of First Contact, arguably the best TNG film, would've been a disappointment.
I don't have a major problem with Insurrection. I like it more than I like First Contact. But all of the TNG movies had their problems, and things that annoyed me about them.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top